M
Matt²
http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/...DeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDZG9uYWxkdHJ1bXBz
Iran: You're Fired!
China: You're Hired!
Iran: You're Fired!
China: You're Hired!
Yeah just Google Trump + Rosie feud.Plus, the man is a definite shark. That's sort of what we need right now.
I do agree that he might be a touch too thin-skinned, though... hopefully he has the sense to listen to his political advisors. I do agree that he could do very good things for an economic turnaround of this country, though.
No no... the question for Trump (and with which he would lose all his votes) would be "Have you ever seen the inside of a Wal-Mart?" followed by "What is the price of a gallon of milk?"Yeah, can't see him as the sort of guy who'd help improve your budget deficit.
I mean, have you seen inside Trump Tower?
Obama.Then again, if it does turn out to be him or Palin... huh.
I'm sure that had nothing to do with discovering shitloads of oil...I don't know. A buisness man could make a good leader.
Danny Williams is the recently retired premier of my province. He's a lawyer and business man....and thanks to him for the first time in years we are no longer in a decline. We're actually making money and we're attracting growth and development.
One billion times zero presidential qualities... that's still pretty littleBut whos to say if he is wrong. At least he is 1 billion times better than palin
Hey hey hey hey... I think he's a terrible choice for presidential candidate too, but let's not resort to cruel name calling.Trump = Palin
The oil was around years before Danny. We were getting shat on because mainland Canada had laid 'claim' to it...there's nothing wrong with that but at the time we were gaining no profits from the oil OR the lower churchil development (hydro-plant) despite it being here.I'm sure that had nothing to do with discovering shitloads of oil...
Michigan has an entrepreneur for governer now, so I'm interested to see how it plays out here. For what it's worth, I don't know that Trump is a good example of an entrepreneur that could truly do well, but that doesn't mean that entrepreneurs are not suited to the job.
Quite frankly I think we need more engineers in government. Too bad it pays so little compared to a good position in silicon valley.
You could probably extend that to "we need people who are qualified to actually do the things they say they will do as president". Not just charismatic speakers. That applies equally to all political parties.Michigan has an entrepreneur for governer now, so I'm interested to see how it plays out here. For what it's worth, I don't know that Trump is a good example of an entrepreneur that could truly do well, but that doesn't mean that entrepreneurs are not suited to the job.
Quite frankly I think we need more engineers in government. Too bad it pays so little compared to a good position in silicon valley.
Not even him can make Sarah Palin look good.Trump can only work to make the other candidates look good.
He made Rosie O'Donnell look good.Not even him can make Sarah Palin look good.
The only problem with your logic is that some of the highly educated presidents have been bad too. So, education and intelligence is not always an indicator for success as a president.You know, republicans can puke all over at the Clinton administration, but the facts are there supporting it as one of the best presidencies of the 20th century. The guy was a Rhodes scholar and came from a rich education background. You would think the American public would hands down vote for more of these kinds of people. You know, those wacky good grade scholar types. I can't see how it would hurt to get a Bill Clinton type up there again with a Ph.D. in - oh I don't know- ECONOMICS AND/OR LAW!
It's funny how the ranked 'Greatest President's' have an extremely endowed educational profile.
Trump would be another W. in office. W. was also a "savvy" business man. Just like Trump, he took an almost unfuckupable (that's my newly invented word) business model (OIL INDUSTRY), and drove his ventures into the toilet.